Post Your Comment

44 Comments

Maybe I missed it but last time I saw a review with the Phenom II CPU's they ran better with DDR3, all the boards for AMD listed are only DDR2 boards.
So whats the deal? Or did I just miss a reason somewhere in other reviews? Reply

would it be possible at all to get the power usage stats of the overclocked version ? A while ago I was reading an article (not sure if here or elsewhere) and it gave the power usage per overclock step and was a great way of working out where to find the balance of power usage vs overclocking amount. Also I'd love to see the power this beast sucks up at 4.6ghz ha Reply

Are you able to measure the CPU clock freq while running the benchmarks to see the affect of the Turbo mode. Labelling as 3.2GHz when it could actually be 3.46GHz.

Can we also see results with the Intel Turbo On & Off ?

Does Intel use core activity to determine Turbo limits or does the on-die temperature sensor allow using higher speeds at any time ?
Intel claimed a bit of both, but it seems very pre-set (1core max, 2core max, 4core max). Can it be overridden ?

How hot can the case temp be before the CPU is prevented from using higher speeds ?

How much activity on other cores will prevent the fastest setting of single core task ? Reply

This article is kind of pointless beyond page 1 just cause you don't include ANY of the processors that used to be the best bang for the buck. Where's the E6600? the E8400? E6420?? the E7650??? Q6600? Seriously, showing us performance for new CPU's is pointless if you're not going to include the processors that sold the best in the past. I mean seriously, the E8400 is STILL the best bang for the buck around for many people and you didn't even include that... sad, just sad. Reply

Its fortunate for AMD that the vast majority of the games out there are NOT multithreaded, like FarCry 2... and for the majority of games out currently, they don't even scale with CPUs beyond 3 cores... which is evident if you look at the Phenom II X3 720's performance in Anand's benchies.

It cracks me up to see some enthusiasts bashing Lynnfield. All things considered, the Lynnfield 2.8GHz CPU with HT will be the one to have for the best gaming frame rates. It has excellent 2 core performance with turbo mode, which will allow for top FPS in most games, and for those that are highly threaded, Graphics bottlenecks considered, it'll hang in pretty darn close to the i7s. Its almost as if Intel designed the chip specifically for hardcore gamers.

How many people bought a 940 or 965 anyway? Seems the vast majority of i7 sales were the 920, and then people OCed them. Guess we have to wait and see the OC results on the retail processors, but I'm guessing a lot more people would be happy to see a speed bumped 920 than these processors. Reply

Turbo remains active during overclocking and depending on the BIOS, it remains active even if TDP limits are exceeded. I have the retail 975 coming and will provide overclocked numbers in a separate article centering on memory performance. Personally, buying a good 920 DO and overclocking it is your best option at this point unless you need a higher multiplier for extreme clocking, at which point the Xeon W3540 will provide you with the best bang for buck overclocks in this area. The unlocked multis on the 975 might allow a slightly better overclock or ability to clock memory, but maybe 0.02% of users will need it. I just have not found any general retail (not special binned from Intel) 975s that have out clocked the W3540s up high at this point and my retail 920 D0s just embarrass this 975 ES sample. Reply

I understand that gaming needs ATI/NVidia discrete cards, but just once I'd really like to see the power consumption numbers quoted without these power hogs...

I'm interested in a quiet Media PC that plays BluRay/HD fine, does MP3/video encoding well, and could be used as a near-zero-load 24/7 file server (low idle power consumption). I have a PS3 for gaming; my PC would be fine with integrated graphics. But all the benchmarking setups are loaded with high-end graphics cards, massive PSUs and a ton of memory.

None of the reviews show me how much the idle power of the CPU is, or that of the chipset/motherboard. I'm sure it's hard as hell to itemize the power consumptions of the components, but that's what I'm hoping Anand's team can figure out.

I'd really like to see how AMD/ATI and Intel platforms work from performance/power point of view in low-power HTPC-like systems (with SSDs etc.). How much power does DDR2/DDR3 really consume? What about undervolting/clocking? Undervolting DDR3? Small-cache/small-size CPUs? Power/performance numbers are always for testbenches, never for CPUs themselves, and the leaky discrete graphics chips always mess up the results.

I have a feeling that the Westmere dual-core desktop/mobile CPUs are going to be perfect for this sort of a system; 100W PicoPSU, SSD, WD Green HD... I just can't find the information anywhere. Reply

too old to have i7 stuff in it, but you probably wouldn't want that in your system anyway.

For reference, my desktop here at work has a 650W Enermax Infiniti PSU, Q6600@3GHz, P35 chipset, 1HDD, 1optical drive, 3 1GB sticks of DDR2, and a passive cooled nVidia 7300GT, and idles at just over 100W at the wall.

To use a PicoPSU you probably need better info on what the components draw on each rail. When power is so limited it matters, I lost a M3-ATX due to that. Reply

It was never able to properly shut the system down, the jumper configuration was set to hibernate the system 5 seconds after the ignition was turned off, instead it waited about a minute. Once a week or so it would refuse to start the system when the ignition was turned on until I pulled the computer case out of the dashboard and then put it back in. Eventually that problem grew more frequent, now when power is applied the led on the M3 blinks but it won't turn a system on. I replaced it with an M2-ATX and that has not had any problems. I have an Intel Atom 330 LF2 board, that board seems to draw the majority of its power off the 5V rail, so apparently the 6A the M3 could provide was not enough 5V for long-term use. Reply

Just an FYI, it's stated that the new i7 975 is 2.5 faster than Intel's fastest Pentium 4, but you didn't test Intel's fastest Pentium 4. The Pentium EE 965, running at 3.73 was it. It also had better power characteristics, since it was a later revision and, if I remember, correctly, had additional power savings modes enabled (EIST?).

Also, you can't compare power draw between a 45 nm part and 65 nm and get disgusted. 45nm was a big advance for Intel in lowering power, and it would have been a very significant boost for the Pentium 4. Still, it was a terrible design, so your point is well taken, but it would not have been THAT terrible on 45nm. I think 5 GHz would have been easy, 6 GHz probably would not have been too difficult either. It's a pity we never got to see it, just out of curiousity. Reply

Curiousity? Take the average gain of all CPUs in question and you can come up with a rather accurate line of performance per Mhz. It would take longer to get the CPU performance numbers than to do the actual math.

6 and 7GHz CPUs come with instability. Thats why we stopped at about 4Ghz and started to work smart instead of hard, like the G4/G5 cpus of old. Reply

Why? Neither processor is even remotely attractive to most people. They're performance is fine, but they are too expensive for what they are, again, for most people. If you're running a business, and faster performing processors helps your workers work faster, the $999 for the 975 is essentially nothing, and well worth it. But, for most people, neither of these processors are relevant.

AMD makes horrible, badly-designed processors, but, is that so different from Intel IGPs? For a lot of people, and AMD processor with and 790GX is a better platform than an Intel based processor with the G45, and a lot of people only need an IGP.

I really do not think ATI was a bad purchase for AMD. It's made their platform a lot stronger vis-a-vis Intel. From a processor perspective, I agree, AMD sells trash, but as a platform, it can be very attractive because of ATI.

No one said AMD processors were trash, except you. You kind of have a back and forth on your own argument: On the one hand, AMD cannot compete on the ultra high-end, on the other, not many people buy ultra high-end equipment.

However, to say that AMD is releasing trash is just nonsense. Their lower-end processors are decent and compete with Intel reasonably well at given price points. They just don't have anything to match Intel at the top, which is not a big deal to most folks. Reply

I wish Intel and AMD would focus on releasing better performing and lower power parts for the notebooks rather than desktops. Desktops are old school, the notebook is the way of the future and you can't notice much performance difference for general applications and even the odd game. Sure if you're a hard core gamer or need workstation performance you'd get a desktop as you can throw whatever you like in it, but everything else in between is better off as a notebook. Reply

Most laptops carry a 65w AC. People start complaining when they have to carry 6kg plus the 130w (or bigger) power brick. Computers are like cars, if you want performance, it will consume loads of juice.

Lappy owner wants, batery life, portability and low weight. They hate when lappys got too hot. So you got everything agaisnt performance. Its like asking a Smart/1.4 HDI engines to compete with my 309 GTI or Delta HF Turbo. And keeping the low mpg. Some DT CPUs have a 140W heat dissipation packadge. Most of them are about 65W - 90W. This is just HEAT that the CPU dissiaptes, the value it consumes is higher. Most lappies AC Adap are in the 65W range...

Most consumers that buy a lappy are ill informed or just don't know what they are buying. Most of them doesn't need that portability, and consider the computer slow soon after they buy it, when they start finding out what it "can't" do. Most time is branding in action or a bad sales monkey.

Netbooks were the way of the future, until they started getting a 30% of return rate. Netbooks are only good as a seconday computers.

I am not a hard core gamer. I don't need workstation performance. I do like a decent performance and i do heavy multi-tasking. You can say Microsoft Office is light (for example), and any laptop can do it, but my Ms for various reasons, when some tasks come, she just drops her lappy and come to my DT. Sometimes to apply a filter. that is just one example.

Laptops/Desktops/Netbooks will never disapear, because they do diferent jobs. You know a laptop/netbook can't handle for very long a intensive (10+ hours daily) tasks. You can't carry a desktop. Well you can, but not everyday.

Honestly ? I think the normal Laptop will disapear and it will be replaced by the netbook in one tier, and slim CULV/ULV cpus in a higher tier. If you need "some" performance and reliability for that matter, the Desktop is there for you.

Yeah, I got a desktop $2000 "replacement" laptop about 3 years ago and it has been a nightmare. In the beginning, it overheated and shut down all the time. Sometimes I couldn't even turn the damn thing on, it'd overheat while LOADING windows.

Now I get it to work pretty well but that's after a cooling pad, arctic silver 5, coppermodding the gpu, undervolting AND underclocking (even undervolted, the higher multipliers get too hot).

Not to mention it's not that portable either, it's damn big and heavy.

I look forward to returning to the US in about a month and using a desktop again. If I ever buy a laptop again, it WILL be a secondary computer for travel purposes. Reply

You'll see both dual and quad-core Nehalem (Core i7 derivatives) on the notebook in the second half of this year. The quad-core options will appear first then the dual-core at the very end of 2009 and into 2010.

yeah, I also remember reading that we were going to see performance comparisons between different notebook GPU's and CPU's; and I quote, "soon". Where's that?? I'm with the guy above, notebooks are the future, barely anyone should care about desktops anymore... granted we need a standardized GPU slot on notebooks and dedicated GPU to integrated GPU switching NEEDS to become standard. Also LED and OLED screens, battery life is SO important. Intel thinks lighter laptops will make people take them outside more... still pointless if we need to carry a stupid ac adapter with us. Reply

Why would you want a dog like Lynnfield if you can get a i7 920 for around the same price?

The issues with Lynnfield can't be fixed, you can overclock an i7 920 and resolve what makes it slow (relatively speaking, of course). How are you going to fix the brain-damaged memory controller on the Lynnfield?

Lynnfield is the Celeron of the Nehalem world. It's fine for mainstream America, who actually can get by with AMD parts. But, for someone who knows how to overclock, why be saddled with a crippled processor when you get pay a little more and get a more capable platform? You're better off getting slower/cheaper memory, and getting an i7, than getting fast memory with the crippled Lynnfield memory controller.

Of course, I'm basing this on the performance given here on the previous review, which has me stunned. Maybe it's just pre-release hardware that caused the big drop in performance and the released version will be better. But still, I really hope they leave the i7 920 or something like it just in case the Lynnfield releases with the performance we saw in the pre-release version. If that's the case, forget it, and get the i7 920. It's got much more potential. Reply

Are you on crack? Lynnfield is a Nehalem without the tri-channel memory controller... Lynnfield is cheaper by $100 at the same speed bin and runs cooler. Some benchmarks on ES put the Lynnfield faster than Nehalem counterparts where the single/dual threaded apps make use of the more generous turbo mode...

Put the reefer down and actually read the article. Lynnfield is 2 months away and already crushing any Phenom II or Penryn and as fast as its Nehalem counterparts at $100 cheaper. Reply

I was asking because I want the flexibility of Crossfire and SLI on the same motherboard, which is something the Lynnfield/P55 platform will not provide. I'm worried that Intel will phase out the 920's, and I'll be left having to a $600ish cpu to get into the X58 platform. Reply

We hope you find our satisfaction guarantee to be the foundation of a long standing relationship with us. We look forward to hearing from you and are always available by telephone or email if you have any questions about our products!!Reply